Following that bit of unpleasantness at the Golden Globes with Meryl Streep, Jeet Heer at the New Republic has struck on new scheme to help improve the Democrats’ prospects in future presidential elections. Pondering the fact that Donald Trump is a “celebrity” who managed to win, a light bulb went off over the author’s head. The Democrats have many more celebrities in their camp. Why not run one of those in 2020?

For further ammunition in support of this argument, Heer summons up a quote from none other than National Review’s David French. In a recent article, he pointed out that while Democrats may be losing elections, they have been winning the culture wars. He noted with some dismay that, the secular Left has taken a sledgehammer to God, family, and country—the pillars of our national culture—and Hollywood has led the way. And since they’ve done such a fine job of that, Heer concludes, perhaps they should put one of their big screen icons on the ticket.

If Hollywood is powerful enough to make people lose faith in God, family, and country, then why should it be a liability in winning elections? The whole business of Hollywood is popularity, which is also the whole business of winning elections. If celebrity endorsements are partly to blame for Hillary Clinton’s loss, why did her husband and Barack Obama win the White House with a comparably impressive set of star endorsements? And if these endorsements are so toxic, then wouldn’t celebrity candidates be even more so?

But history shows that celebrity candidates can win, and it’s for the same reason that politicians like Obama and the Clintons tout celebrity endorsements: We live in a media-saturated world where fame has persuasive power.

One thing to note is that Heer bases this argument on the assumption that Donald Trump is “a celebrity.” He was certainly famous in his own right long before he came down that golden escalator, but… a celebrity? The author compares him to other Republican office holders including Reagan, tossing in Schwarzenegger and Fred Thompson for good measure. Two of these examples were clearly celebrities first. The Terminator and Fred Thompson were best known for their movie and television work before seeking office. Reagan is more of a mixed bag since he obviously started out as a beloved movie figure, but spent time as Governor of California prior to seeking the presidency.

Trump, on the other hand, took a very different route. He was well known around the country (if not the world) as a successful businessman long before he showed up on reality TV. In fact, one could well argue that there would have been zero interest in putting him on a television show were it not for his broad name recognition earned through his business successes. To the extent that one could describe Trump as a celebrity, he got there through the back door.

But rather than quibbling over that description all day, let’s get to the meat of the matter. Who does Jeet Heer propose putting on the ticket next time around?

Instead of rejecting Streep, as writers like Jones suggest, Democrats would do well to embrace her and fellow Hollywood stars. The party could recruit Streep and others to bait Trump, and perhaps, as [Michael] Moore suggested, groom some to be presidential candidates. In 2020, the Democrats could run Streep, Leonardo DiCaprio, Beyonce, Matt Damon, or Rosie O’Donnell.

Streep will be 71 when the next election rolls around. That’s not a disqualifier (obviously) and her health seems good by all reports, but how well would she stand up under questioning? DiCaprio and Matt Damon would certainly help with the women’s vote I suppose. Beyonce? Her name recognition couldn’t conceivably be much higher. But… Rosie O’Donnell?

Oh, yes please. Speaking on behalf of a grateful nation of conservatives, please, please, please run Rosie O’Donnell. And while you’re at it, fill out the ticket with Roseanne Barr in the veep slot. I can’t think of a better way to spend 2020.

_________________The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

The fact that they are thinking of running a celebrity just proves they still have no clue why they lost. They refuse to admit that they lost largely because of POLICY not celebrity. Border security, trade, domestic energy, environmentalist stupidity, defense, political correctness, national security, law enforcement, tax policy... they are on the wrong side of every issue.And wrapping up their box of dog feces failed socialist and corrupt policies in a nicer box with celebrity wrapping paper won't make a bit of difference.

_________________---------------------------------If those who can do, and those who can't teach, what does that say about a sex education teacher?

The fact that they are thinking of running a celebrity just proves they still have no clue why they lost. They refuse to admit that they lost largely because of POLICY not celebrity. Border security, trade, domestic energy, environmentalist stupidity, defense, political correctness, national security, law enforcement, tax policy... they are on the wrong side of every issue.And wrapping up their box of dog feces failed socialist and corrupt policies in a nicer box with celebrity wrapping paper won't make a bit of difference.

CRAP, THAT WAS FUNNY.

_________________I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.

The fact that they are thinking of running a celebrity just proves they still have no clue why they lost. They refuse to admit that they lost largely because of POLICY not celebrity. Border security, trade, domestic energy, environmentalist stupidity, defense, political correctness, national security, law enforcement, tax policy... they are on the wrong side of every issue.And wrapping up their box of dog feces failed socialist and corrupt policies in a nicer box with celebrity wrapping paper won't make a bit of difference.

Here’s your leftover turkey: The case for Hillary Clinton 2020What better way to honor the holiday than with a spiteful argument for yet another Clinton candidacy?

29.4K466853MATTHEW ROZSA11.24.2017•6:00 AM

Are you sick of Republicans? Or just right-wingers in general? Do you want to send a message to Washington that you aren't going to buy into their racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic and classist nonsense for one second longer?

Then do the very thing that Donald Trump unintentionally encouraged in a recent tweet: Encourage Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2020!

Donald J. Trump✔@realDonaldTrumpCrooked Hillary Clinton is the worst (and biggest) loser of all time. She just can’t stop, which is so good for the Republican Party. Hillary, get on with your life and give it another try in three years!8:31 AM - Nov 18, 2017

I'm sure this is the part where the Clinton-haters — be they Trumpers, Bernie Bros or anything in between — will say something to the effect of, "Of course he wants her to run again. That's the only way he'll get re-elected!"

Slow your roll there. Clinton's poll numbers aren't too good right now (OK, they're downright atrocious), but there are still four great reasons to consider choosing her as the Democratic nominee in 2020. Even better, all but one of them has to do with an emotion that has no place in this season (which is why I absolutely had to write this article for Thanksgiving weekend): Spite. Delicious, nutritious spite.

I agree with the basic principle of Godwin's Law: The first person to invoke Hitler in a political debate should normally lose. The exception, of course, has to be when someone has genuine Hitler-like qualities. A foreign despot who has invaded neighboring countries and has a right-wing nationalist agenda is about as Nazi-like as you can get.

This is where Clinton offers a quality that no politician in America can beat. While Republicans are trying to tar her with a bogus scandal connecting her to Russia (and anyone who believes Clinton did something wrong in the Uranium One deal lacks credibility on all matters political), the reality is that no candidate can be better described as Russia's nemesis than Clinton. Putin has always hated Clinton because of his innate sexism, which has manifested in his policies, and she certainly didn't endear herself to him by publicly criticizing Russian corruption in 2011. As the ample connections between the Trump campaign and Russia or its water-carriers like WikiLeaks clearly demonstrate, the one person we know we can trust more than anyone is the candidate who Putin very obviously did not want to see as America's president.

2. Hillary Clinton being elected president (at last) would monumentally piss off misogynistic trolls, and what's not to like about that?

I can't think of a single political figure in recent American history who has been hated as deeply, or for as long, as Hillary Clinton. From the moment she emerged on the national stage in 1992 as a distinctly feminist prospective first lady, she has been the target of right-wing wrath woefully out of proportion to anything she has ever said or done.

The reason for this is sexism. It's not the chic thing to say right now, but no other explanation really makes sense. Yes, Hillary Clinton is more centrist than either party likes these days, but why is she singled out for opprobrium here when her husband — who actually served as president — remains popular despite holding the exact same views? The same point can be made about the claim that she is corrupt or too establishment. To the extent that these accusations are valid, they are no more true of Clinton than of the vast majority of politicians from both parties (especially Trump).

At the very least, the next Democratic presidential candidate needs to be a woman — perhaps not Clinton specifically, but certainly a woman, to offset the symbolic gut-punch of the first female candidate getting cheated by an overt misogynist. And speaking of cheating ...

3. By winning the popular vote convincingly in 2016, Hillary Clinton has earned the right to be considered the presumptive nominee in 2020.

As I wrote in September, Clinton is the first defeated presidential candidate to win the popular vote without being automatically considered a frontrunner in the next election. Two of the previous four popular vote-winning also-rans were actually elected in the subsequent cycle (Andrew Jackson in 1828 and Grover Cleveland in 1892), while two others were widely regarded as frontrunners before dropping out for personal reasons (Samuel Tilden and Al Gore).

Let us not forget that, for all of the smack talk about how poorly Clinton ran her campaign, she bested Trump by nearly 3 million votes. This was no razor-thin margin of victory, but a decisive expression of the American public's preference. In terms of percentage points, her margin of victory was roughly comparable to that by which Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford in 1976 or George W. Bush beat John Kerry in 2004. She also held Trump to a lower percentage of the popular vote than that garnered by Mitt Romney in 2012.

4. We can expect her to be a good president.

Frankly, the worst thing that can be said about a potential 2020 Clinton candidacy, especially in America's current cultural and political climate, is that her husband still hasn't answered for the numerous sexual abuse accusations against him. While it may seem unfair for Hillary to be held accountable for Bill's alleged predations, it can plausibly be argued that she played a role in helping him cover them up. If that is ever proved beyond a reasonable doubt, she should be given the heave-ho.

Then again, Bill Clinton is also widely associated with the economic, social and foreign policy conditions of the beloved 1990s, and is greatly missed for that reason. And since few dispute that Hillary was her husband's co-president during that halcyon decade, that association can still remain a giant advantage.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Clinton demonstrated through the 2016 Democratic National Committee platform that she would work with progressives on pursuing a policy agenda very close to their own goals. On issues ranging from raising the minimum wage and fighting global warming to scaling back the war on drugs, she would stand exactly where the majority of grassroots activists in the party want her to be. Plus — while this has been noted countless times before, it deserves repetition — she has ample experience as a U.S. senator and secretary of state in actually getting things done.

That ability to get things done, by the way, is why Clinton had high approval ratings as secretary of state (usually in the 60s), even proving more popular than President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden in 2011 and 2012. Her stock may be low now, but it's been low in the past (such as when she "ran" to be first lady in 1992), and it has always recovered. Arguably the big political question facing a potential Hillary 2020 campaign will be whether that bounce occurs at a fortuitous moment for her. It very well could, and wouldn't that be a giant helping of the dish best served cold?

This MATTHEW ROZSA....not only did he drink the Kool Aid, he is drowning in it!

_________________The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

The fact that they are thinking of running a celebrity just proves they still have no clue why they lost. They refuse to admit that they lost largely because of POLICY not celebrity. Border security, trade, domestic energy, environmentalist stupidity, defense, political correctness, national security, law enforcement, tax policy... they are on the wrong side of every issue.And wrapping up their box of dog feces failed socialist and corrupt policies in a nicer box with celebrity wrapping paper won't make a bit of difference.

Yup!

The Democratic party is doomed literally endangered species list. The Republican party would be there too if only a few dials were turned just a few notches. The era of our establishment overlords which began sometime after the assassination of JFK is coming to a close, and there will be at least one new political party to emerge out of it in the next 5 years, perhaps even sooner. The other one may hang on for quite a while but it too will either change or decline.

And "the Left," or the insane gulls who pass for that label today did not "win the culture wars," the author is crazy on that point.

The main problem with both parties is that they think their "party" is the raison d'etres, instead of the fucking country.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum